The Supreme Court's Decision on the Daniel Case: Implications for Pension Regulations
分析美国最高法院和第七巡回上诉法院对丹尼尔案的判决理由，探讨其对私人养老金监管的影响，并指出养老金管理者面临的不确定性和各方潜在责任。
types of private pension plans. The limited scope of the higher court's decision, however, leaves unsettled a number of questions regarding the future focus and scope of private pension regulation. The purpose of this note is to review and analyze the reasoning of the opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Court with respect to the Daniel case, and to explore the implications of these opinions for pension regulation. Finally, this note will identify the sources of uncertainty facing pension administrators and the potential liability of various parties in the post-Daniel environment. Facts of the Daniel Case John Daniel was a member of Local 705 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America (Teamsters) and worked for employers who contributed to the Local 705 multiemployer pension plan. To receive benefits from this noncontributory, defined-benefit plan, employees must have attained age 60 and have 20 years of uninterrupted covered service (employees can contribute during an involuntary layoff to meet this requirement). In the instant case, Daniel worked for participating employers for over 23 years except for an involuntary layoff of four months due to adverse economic conditions affecting the employer. When Daniel filed for his pension, he was denied the benefit because of the service break during which he did not contribute to the fund. Daniel claimed that throughout his working career he believed that he would receive the pension and had numerous communications from Local 705 and plan ad